[Superman]

First, the bad:

In the writing posted by Cegerer, I see phrases like this:

"you are a bigger group of fools than anyone imagined"

"you are not just acting foolish, you are delusional"

"I am ashamed for you"

Those passages were found in the first paragraph. And I wonder if anyone thinks it ironic that the point of the writing is to suggest that vitriol is not constructive.

And before I start with the good, I have to report in all honesty that I abhor just about every single thing about George W. Bush. I can hardly imagine a more destructive president. But hey, I'll spare you the details here.

The good: I am going to try to tone down my criticism. On it is honestly what I feel and I am not going to be dishonest or recuse myself from the American political discussion. So, you're going to continue to hear from me and some of it is going to sound as though it is disapproval. But again, I'll continue to tone professionalize my remarks.

I say "continue" because I am beginning to cool off about what happened. (by the way, I don't actually wear tights. skirts and dresses yeah, but that's another story. Never tights.) Now, some of you may reject my assertion that my nasty tone is coming down. I don't frankly care. But yeah, I became livid over what I was seeing here and talking nice was not going to cause everyone else to talk nice, so I "went ballistic." This is not an apology and it can happen again. I am not the guy to take to a meeting where something needs to be said but no one is saying it. Dubya apparently felt that someone needed to "square off" with Saddam. I felt someone needed to "square off" with some of the posters here. More than a few of you should understand this.

I don't know what to say about where Americans really are. It used to be that most Republicans were moderate, and so were most Democrats. I'd like to say that now, but I'm not sure. If the Republican party regains its good judgement and sense of responsibility and cooperation, then we'll have a better country. Similarly, if the Democratic party sets aside whatever is disenfranchising it from the people, then cooperation and progress will be the effect. But right now, the Republican party seems to have been hijacked by a bunch of (probably well-meaning but) destructive fanatics. And now, some writer things that since a Republican candidate won the presidential election, that it's time to throw stones at the losing party. Nice. Cute. Perhaps this is an example of bringing the nation together. Hmmmmm.

Anyway, notwithstanding these observations, I am going to struggle mightily to understand how, in the words of another writer, the peoples' party, the party of their parents, the party of Joe Lunchbox and Sally Waitress, is turning out in droves to vote tax breaks for billionaires. I do not understand that but will struggle to do so. For example I have heard from many folks that the Democrats are viewed as New England elitists. That would explain why Kerry was such a disappointing choice (and a choice I was not comfortable with from the start). But I also personally do not see the elitist thing. Still, it is Joe and Sally's perception I need to understand.

And I hear about many peoples' hatred for Michael Moore, and I see the writer's opinion that Democrats' spewing of hatred caused its fall. But it looks to me like both parties ran negative campaigns and it is my perception that Dubya's campaigns, both of them, have been more negative than his opponents'. MHO. So, I don't think the young writer has it all figured out yet. Nor do I.

So yeah, I'm struggling to understand, and intend to be more effective once I do. I have no hope that Dubya is going to "bring the nation together" and I believe that my nation is going to be bitterly divided until the religious fanatics who hope to shove their values down everyone else's throats are gone. I am deeply religious as most here know, so I sure do not mind religion and Christianity.

I'm out of time and should not go into detail anyway, but I will take what I can from this writer's remarks that are productive. And in contrast with some folks reverence for the remarks, I think they do have limited value. I'll be most happy to work with the writer, as he or she seems to be fairly centrist, which is the patch of ground where we will meet as a nation, once the fanatics are gone. But no, I don't think Democrats, even wildly liberal ones, expressing their views during this campaign season, was the problem. If you look down my finger as though it were the barrel of a gun, you'll see the fanatics who are pushing prayer in school, use of public funds to underwrite for-profit "charter" schools, outlaw abortion, outlaw gay marriage, eliminate environmental regulations as "voodoo science" while insisting that creationism be taught in place of evolution (and by the way, I am a creationist as well as a person who accepts Natural Selection as a fact), squeezing workers wage and overtime entitlements, eliminating workers' rights to fair treatment and collective bargaining wherever possible, creating tax breaks for every abominable antisocial profiteering activity that is attractive to industry, etc etc. While you allow those people to take control of your beloved Republican party, while you allow those people to shove their agenda down everyone else's throats, you're going to be part and parcel of the obscenity of ripping this nation apart. When you are in control, young man or young woman, and you want to bring your centrist ideas to a legitimate and inclusive table where the fairly minor differences between our parties can be negotiated and resolved, then I'll be there waiting. Until then your agenda, and mine, is being hijacked.

Gotta go.